On 1/17/22 09:57, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Isn't the argument here that if it's in most chip sets already it might
reasonably be expected to be a standard low end feature by now, along
with IPv6?
That it isn't may be why people are open to SRv6 (I'm assuming some are
based on this
> Isn't the argument here that if it's in most chip sets already it might
> reasonably be expected to be a standard low end feature by now, along
> with IPv6?
>
> That it isn't may be why people are open to SRv6 (I'm assuming some are
> based on this discussion) - if they have to pay extra they
On Mon Jan 17, 2022 at 09:25:47AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> High-end IP routing features (which includes MPLS) have always attracted
> additional costs on what are meant to be Layer 2/3 switches.
Isn't the argument here that if it's in most chip sets already it might
reasonably be expected to
On 1/17/22 03:52, Colton Conor wrote:
I agree that pretty much all the chipsets and asics out there today
support MPLS, but it's the vendor and NOS that decides whether to
enable it or not, or charge more for it.
That has been the case since MPLS debuted.
Example, Junipers EX4600,
I agree that pretty much all the chipsets and asics out there today
support MPLS, but it's the vendor and NOS that decides whether to
enable it or not, or charge more for it.
Example, Junipers EX4600, QFX5100 and ACX5048 all have the same
Broadcom Trident II+ ASIC inside. One supports full MPLS
Hey Sabri,
Eventually they have implemented everything ;-)
Arista was a really special case, routing stack they acquired (NextHop) had no
mpls (quite some time ago), 90% of their revenue was coming from IP only
networks.
Life is good, MS is treating me well :).
Kids are growing, Marina’
Plane IP underlay works real well, I’m yet to see tangible proof of TE in DC
(outside of niche HPC/IB cases).
SR in DC - with overlay starting on the host SR-MPLSoUDP(RFC8663) is a perfect
representation of a working technology that works in IP environment as well as
allows end2end programming
On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 at 19:22, Colton Conor wrote:
> True, but in general MPLS is more costly. It's available on limited
> devices, from limited vendors. Infact, many of these vendors, like
> Extreme, charge you if you want to enable MPLS features on a box
Marketing, not fundamentals. DC people
+1 Mark
There’s no modern silicon that doesn’t support MPLS (and is capable of imposing
at least 3 labels). There’s 0 additional price for vendors to enable MPLS on
their devices. The rest is subject to vendors’ licensing and is completely
artificial.
SR-MPLS uses MPLS data-plane and requires
On 1/15/2022 9:16 AM, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
On 1/15/22 10:22 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
True, but in general MPLS is more costly. It's available on limited
devices, from limited vendors. Infact, many of these vendors, like
Extreme, charge you if you want to enable MPLS features on a box.
And
On 1/15/22 21:16, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
And in this discussion group, when MPLS is mentioned, does that
include VPLS? Or do operators simply use MPLS and manually bang up
the various required point-to-point links? Or is there a better way
to do this?
For example, Free Range
On 1/15/22 19:22, Colton Conor wrote:
True, but in general MPLS is more costly. It's available on limited
devices, from limited vendors. Infact, many of these vendors, like
Extreme, charge you if you want to enable MPLS features on a box.
Well, I don't entirely agree.
Pretty much all
On 1/15/22 10:22 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
True, but in general MPLS is more costly. It's available on limited
devices, from limited vendors. Infact, many of these vendors, like
Extreme, charge you if you want to enable MPLS features on a box.
And in this discussion group, when MPLS is mentioned,
True, but in general MPLS is more costly. It's available on limited
devices, from limited vendors. Infact, many of these vendors, like
Extreme, charge you if you want to enable MPLS features on a box.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:11 AM Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:31, Colton Conor
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 00:31, Colton Conor wrote:
> I agree it seems like MPLS is still the gold standard, but ideally I
> would only want to have costly, MPLS devices on the edge, only where
> needed. The core and transport devices I would love to be able to use
> generic IPv6 enabled switches,
On 1/13/22 00:28, Colton Conor wrote:
I agree it seems like MPLS is still the gold standard, but ideally I
would only want to have costly, MPLS devices on the edge, only where
needed. The core and transport devices I would love to be able to use
generic IPv6 enabled switches, that don't need
Hi Randy,
> this is quite true, and a serious issue. but it has a good side. if
> you run an ipv6 enebled network, you can deploy srv6 without enabling
> srv6 everywhere, only at the marking encaps or embed) points. nice for
> partial and/or incremental deployment.
Yep, that's what I like
I agree it seems like MPLS is still the gold standard, but ideally I
would only want to have costly, MPLS devices on the edge, only where
needed. The core and transport devices I would love to be able to use
generic IPv6 enabled switches, that don't need to support LDP. Low end
switches from
> What worries me more is the opportunity for adversaries to inject SRv6
> packets. MPLS is not enabled by default on most router interfaces, so
> an adversary would have to have access to an interface where MPLS
> processing is explicitly enabled. IPv6 packet processing on the other
> hand…
Thus spake Sander Steffann (san...@steffann.nl) on Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at
06:21:25PM +0100:
> Hi,
>
> > No SRv6 is MPLS labeling where label is carried inside IP instead
> > before the IP header. Layering violation which increases complexity
> > and cost for no other purpose except dishonest
Hi,
> No SRv6 is MPLS labeling where label is carried inside IP instead
> before the IP header. Layering violation which increases complexity
> and cost for no other purpose except dishonest marketing about 'it is
> IP, you already understand it, MPLS is hard'.
What worries me more is the
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 18:20, wrote:
> Like ytti (saku) mentioned, with SR/SPRING the IGP is finally carrying the
> Label/Sid, so we no longer need a label distribution mechanism running
> alongside the IGP (don't need LDP or RSVP). And for SRv6 vice SR-MPLS, the
> SID is now the IPv6
: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 2:35 AM
To: Adam Thompson
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: SRv6 Capable NOS and Devices
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 00:00, Adam Thompson wrote:
> My question is, why do you think you need Segment Routing at all? Is your
> network so enormously large and/or c
On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 00:00, Adam Thompson wrote:
> My question is, why do you think you need Segment Routing at all? Is your
> network so enormously large and/or complex that IS-IS (and/or MPLS-TE) isn't
> capable of handling it?
> So far, SR looks like a solution in search of a problem, at
On 1/11/22 23:57, Adam Thompson wrote:
My question is, why do you think you need Segment Routing at all? Is your
network so enormously large and/or complex that IS-IS (and/or MPLS-TE) isn't
capable of handling it?
So far, SR looks like a solution in search of a problem, at least to me.
On 1/11/22 19:20, Saku Ytti wrote:
And you have this use-case? And you can't use MPLSoUDP?
SRv6 is pure snake oil, an easy marketing story to people with limited
knowledge. 'It is just IP bro, you already know it'. I'd like to to
continue 'like already widely used X', but I don't dare,
On 1/11/22 17:16, Colton Conor wrote:
Has
anyone deployed this new technology?
I have heard of a network in Uganda that is running it.
The rest I've heard of are either in the lab, or some portions of their
network under testing.
If building a greenfield regional ISP network, would
My question is, why do you think you need Segment Routing at all? Is your
network so enormously large and/or complex that IS-IS (and/or MPLS-TE) isn't
capable of handling it?
So far, SR looks like a solution in search of a problem, at least to me.
I'm not saying you don't have a need for it,
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 at 17:20, Colton Conor wrote:
> My understanding is that because it's using IPv6 in the dataplane, not
> all devices have to have SRv6 enabled. The in-between core devices
> just have to support IPv6, but not necessarily support SRv6. This is
> much different than traditional
❦ 11 January 2022 09:16 -06, Colton Conor:
> I know the SRv6 is a fairly new technology. I am wondering which
> vendors and network operating systems fully support SRv6 today? Has
> anyone deployed this new technology?
Cisco on NCS devices have full support of SRv6 F1 (End, End.X, End.T,
30 matches
Mail list logo
